Loading...
5.4. SR 01-10-2005 Item # 5.4. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Rebecca Haug, Environmental Technician DATE: January 10, 2005 SUBJECT: Wetland Buffer Ordinance Once a month, the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) which consists of people from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), Board of Water & Soil Resources (BWSR), Sherburne Soil & Water Conservation District (SWCD), Sherburne County Ditch Inspector and I meet to discuss projects in the City that affect wetlands. A suggestion that came out of the Natural Resources Inventory is the City adopting a wetland buffer ordinance. At the December and January TEP meetings, this item was discussed and several communities were contacted to review their ordinances. City staff is aware that this is going to be very controversial for developers since it will impact them economically. However, several communities in the metro area have adopted wetland buffer ordinances that are much more restrictive than what is being proposed by staff for the City of Elk River. The purpose of a wetland buffer is to provide a vegetated area that surrounds a wetland and reduces the negative impacts to wetlands from adjacent development. Buffers are necessary for protecting water quality and for providing wildlife habitat. The effectiveness of a wetland buffer in removing sediments and nutrients from surface runoff varies widely due to many factors which include, but are not limited to; slope, vegetative cover density, vegetation types and width. Typically, buffers are established for their water quality improvement potential. High quality wildlife habitat requires significantly wider buffers and higher vegetative diversity/integrity. At the January 6, 2005 TEP meeting the following recommendations were made: a. Require a 45' setback for structures from wetlands allowing for a 20' backyard and a 25' wetland buffer. The wetland buffer would be included in the drainage and utility easement. Nothing would be allowed to be placed in the buffer area unless the property owner is planting desirable, native, non- invasive species. b. This setback would apply to industrial and commercial structures as well as residential. c. This would apply to structures in new plats only not existing structures. d. The developer will be responsible for placing permanent monuments on each property line defining the buffer setback e. The developer will be responsible for revegetating the buffer if the vegetation consists of undesirable, invasive, non-native species. f. This ordinance would not apply to any plats that are currently in the platting process The Planning Commission will be reviewing this on January II, 2005. Staff is only looking for comments from the Council on this idea at this time. Staff anticipates a formal ordinance being presented to the Planning Commission in February and City Council in March. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Rebecca Haug, Environmental Technician DATE: January 10, 2005 SUBJECT: Old City Dump Proposal- John Lichter, Leisch Associates, Inc. sent Stephen Rohlf the Groundwater Monitoring Results from the Old City Dump (located in Hillside Park south of CSAH 12) on December 14, 2004. Liesch Associates, Inc completed the groundwater sampling on October 18,2004. Samples were taken at monitoring wells MW-2, and MW-3 within the dump, and the Vandenberg and Hipsag residential wells located west and southeast of the dump. The Kirkeide and Brown residences, formerly located south of the dump, no longer exist. MW-1 formerly located north of the dump was sealed in 2002 when a parking lot for the city park was constructed in the area where the well was located. FINDINGS . VOC detections were at a low level in MW-2 and MW-3. 1,1,2,2- tetrachloroethylene was identified at 1.1 parts per billion (ppb) in MW -2 and 1,1,2-trichloroethylene (TCE) was identified at 2.2 ppb in MW-3. No VOCs were detected at the Vandenberg and Hipsag residential wells. . VOC concentrations at the monitoring well locations continue to decline. . The concentrations are below current Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) Health Risk Limits (HRLs) for drinking water. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the following: 1. Annual monitoring continues until future plans for the site are known. 2. Results of the private well testing continue to be sent to the individual residence. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Rebecca Haug, Environmental Technician DATE: January 10, 2005 SUBJECT: 2004 NPDES Permit Update The City of Elk River was required by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to apply for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (N PDES) General Storm Water Permit by March 10, 2003. The permit requires the city to develop and implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) and achieve measurable goals to satisfy six minimum control measures. The six goals are Public Education and Outreach; Public Participation/lnvolvement; Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination; Construction Site Runoff Control; Post Construction Runoff Control; and Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping. The City was able to meet goals in each of the six measures. Some examples are: I. Project NEMO (Nonpoint source pollution .Education for Municipal Qfficials) presentation to the City Council on July 12, 2004 2. Website link for storm water related information 3. Continuance of licensing lawn care professionals 4. Inspections of plats to ensure erosion control measures are being taken 5. Inspections of storm drains (20% required each year) and repairing three (3) along the Mississippi River 6. Direct mailings all property owners in the City of Elk River 7. Direct mailings to all shoreland property owners in the city 8. City applied for a grant to the MPCA (however, we did not receive the grant) 9. City created a standard Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for developers 10. Building Inspectors issued Stop Work Orders if silt fence was not installed properly on all building sites. In 2005, City staff will continue to improve the storm water permit program by implementing several more goals. City of Elk River Policies on the WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT (WCA) ADMINISTRATION The City of Elk River administers the WCA throughout the City. APPEAL PROCEDURE & PROCESS It is the intention of the City of Elk River to give the WCA participants one (1) opportunity to meet directly with the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) to add input into the decision before the actual decision is made. If this has not occurred, the fIrst level of administration appeal will be the City Council. If the appeal remains unresolved, the applicant can appeal to the Board of Water and Soil Resources as specifIed in Chapter 8420.0280. Additionally, if new information is to be presented which has not been seen by the TEP for evaluation, it will be returned to the TEP for reconsideration. This policy will be strongly enforced. DELINEATIONS All delineations shall be done by private delineators. . Staff should avoid providing delineations except in very rare cases where private delineators are impractical due to availability or the project is such that the cost of the delineation greatly increases the cost of the project. WINTER DELINEATIONS Winter delineations are extremely hard to review and in many cases accuracy could be questionable. "Winter" may be interpreted as frost in the ground and/ or unreliable vegetation cataloging. No delineations will be accepted during the non- growing season as they are unable to be verifIed. MITIGATION Wetland replacement citing is important because certain site- specifIc wetland functions may be critical. On-site mitigation and mitigation within the same watershed are preferred under WCA rules. It is the policy of the City of Elk River to require on-site mitigation within the same minor watershed . The City's requirement is to provide 2:1 replacement on- site . 2-celled retention/ detention ponds will not be counted as wetland mitigation NOTIFICATION Persons involved in an appeal/mitigation plan for Wetland Law activities need to be notifIed if action will be taken on their project at a City Council meeting so that as an "interested party" they might attend. NOTIFICATION PROCESS The notifIcation process will be allowed to proceed without formal City Council authorization. PERMANENT PROGRAM ADOPTION SEQUENCING TECHNICAL EVALUATION PANEL TECHNICAL EVALUATION PANEL- COMPOSITION WETLAND BANK WETLAND FILLS The City of Elk River will adhere to the Wedand Conservation Act rules in their most current approved form. Wedand Conservation Act rules require that two alternatives that avoid wedand impacts be presented. One of the two alternatives may be a "no build" option for sequencing to be a viable application. Replacement plans will be considered incomplete unless two alternatives showing no wedand impacts are presented. Alternatives showing more wedand impacts will not be accepted for this purpose. A written discussion and a plan will be required. An exception will be made for applications impacting less than 10,000 square feet of wedand where the TEP agrees that "on-site sequencing" is applicable. For on-site sequencing, a written discussion is required, but a plan is not. Wedand Conservation Act applications must be received by the First day of the month for consideration at the regularly scheduled TEP meeting. Ten (10) copies are required to be submitted at this time. The regular TEP meetings are scheduled for the second Thursday of each month at 1 :00 p.m. Other days and times may be used as necessary. The members of the TEP include a representative from the City of Elk River Building and Environmental Department, Sherburne Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD), Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR), Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), and Sherburne County Ditch Inspector The State Wedand Bank will be the only bank used and the City will certify projects for deposit in the bank. . City of Elk River wedand credits are not available for purchasing According to the WCA - projects must meet the test of avoidance. . Wedand fill is not allowed for building sites MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Rebecca Haug, Environmental Technician DATE: January 10, 2005 SUBJECT: Composting Update The amount of grass, leaves, and brush that the City accepts from residents and then processes and composts has been steadily increasing. For the past several years, the County has allotted approximately $50,000.00 of SCORE funds to the four cities of the Sherburne County Municipal Recycling Board (Becker, Big Lake, Elk River, and Zimmerman) to cover contract brush grinding and some of the hauling costs that each city incurs. There is a concern among the group of cities that the County will reallocate the SCORE monies and reduce or eliminate funding for the local programs. City staff has been working on possible solutions for the compost dilemma. This issue has been discussed with Sherburne County's Solid Waste Officer and it was suggested that the City bring its material to the Yonco II landfill in Becker which is in the process of getting permitted to take compost. City staff has asked if the County would be interested in purchasing a truck to pick up the compost to be delivered to Yonco II or if the County would be willing to purchase a truck for the City to use to bring the compost to Yonco II. No decisions have been made regarding the trucking of the compost. Another concern City staff has with bringing their material to Yonco II is whether or not we would be charged to dump the compost. City staff does not see this making financial sense if we have to truck our compost to Becker and also have to pay to dump it there and then Yonco II make a profit. Phil Hals, Street Superintendent has contacted Todd Plaisted of Plaisted Companies to see if they would be interested in composting. Todd's initial response was that they would be interested in accepting leaves, grass and chipped brush from the City but not as a general public drop off. Many details need to be worked out but there are many positives to this proposal. It was also suggested that the City work with an area farmer. I spoke with Bill Bronder, Sherburne Soil & Water Conservation District (SWCD) about this idea and he brought it up to his Board. Doug Manthei, a SWCD Board member who lives just north of the Elk River Landfill in Livonia Township is interested in taking the grass and leaves. City staff has considered the unused perimeter of the sludge land but trucking 400 to 500 loads from the Public Works facility to the sludge land via city streets and Highway 10 becomes a major consideration because of truck time as well as traffic issues.